Differences between Lutheranism and Calvinism?

[Red 5]

My problem with Calvinism is that it will always have you looking inward for assurance of your salvation. Lutheranism has you looking outward, at the cross, at the sacraments. It is objective, whereas Calvinism is subjective.

 

[BBAS 64]

My problem with Calvinism is that it will always have you looking inward for assurance of your salvation. Lutheranism has you looking outward, at the cross, at the sacraments. It is objective, whereas Calvinism is subjective.

Good Day, Red

As objective as they may be, the issue is one of the subject (you and me) understanding the objective, so it is all subjective for every one thus the subject/object issue ome into play.

As a Calvinist, the objective fact of his death is good enough for me, how I understand that impact is allways a subjective task that we both ponder internally on that which is external.

In Him,

Bill

 

[Red 5]

Good Day, Red

As objective as they may be, the issue is one of the subject (you and me) understanding the objective, so it is all subjective for every one thus the subject/object issue ome into play.

As a Calvinist, the objective fact of his death is good enough for me, how I understand that impact is allways a subjective task that we both ponder internally on that which is external.

In Him,

Bill

How do you know that the objective fact of his death is good enough for you? You may have false faith and not be one of the elect.

For the Lutheran, because of the doctrine of Universal Atonement, you know that Christ died for you. You also know that your faith is saving faith.

 

[BBAS 64]

How do you know that the objective fact of his death is good enough for you? You may have false faith and not be one of the elect.

For the Lutheran, because of the doctrine of Universal Atonement, you know that Christ died for you. You also know that your faith is saving faith.

Good day,

Fake faith is a misnomer. it is no faith in the end.

For the Lutheran that may be true and how you define "Atonement" my be out side the teaching of scripture.

I would agree with Luther on this:

"All things whatever arise from, and depend on, the divine appointment; whereby it was foreordained who should receive the word of life, and who should disbelieve it; who should be delivered from their sins, and who should be hardened in them; and who should be justified and who should be condemned."

I know scripture teaches that the gift of faith is real and I know that the Gospel has effected my life and I know so subjectively, based on the reality of who I now am in Christ by the appoinment of the Father. Your own subjective understanding of the attonement ( the way you define it) does you no better than that.

In Him,

Bill

 

[bach90]

Good day,

Fake faith is a misnomer. it is no faith in the end.

For the Lutheran that may be true and how you define "Atonement" my be out side the teaching of scripture.

I would agree with Luther on this:

"All things whatever arise from, and depend on, the divine appointment; whereby it was foreordained who should receive the word of life, and who should disbelieve it; who should be delivered from their sins, and who should be hardened in them; and who should be justified and who should be condemned."

I know scripture teaches that the gift of faith is real and I know that the Gospel has effected my life and I know so subjectively, based on the reality of who I now am in Christ by the appoinment of the Father. Your own subjective understanding of the attonement ( the way you define it) does you no better than that.

In Him,

Bill

Luther also believed that election (though not free will) should avoid being discussed:


A dispute about predestination should be avoided entirely... I forget everything about Christ and God when I come upon these thoughts and actually get to the point to imagining that God is a rogue. We must stay in the word, in which God is revealed to us and salvation is offered, if we believe him. But in thinking about predestination, we forget God . . However, in Christ are hid all the treasures (Col. 2:3); outside him all are locked up. Therefore, we should simply refuse to argue about election.

Such a disputation is so very displeasing to God that he has instituted Baptism, the spoken Word, and the Lord’s Supper to counteract the temptation to engage in it. In these, let us persist and constantly say, I am baptized I believe in Jesus. I care nothing about the disputation concerning predestination.

Also, if you look at Calvin's Institutes, he teaches that there are going to be some people who believe they are saved but are just lying to themselves so much they don't even know it. If you're a Calvinist, how can you be assured that you're not among those who are just lying to themselves so well, they don't even know that they aren't saved.

I'm not trying to play the straw man argument here, like I said, the Calvinist doctrine of election is not faulty because it teaches election, it just goes to an "extreme" (not trying to be pejorative) that Scripture doesn't want to go to. It does this in two ways. First it rips out the comfort and assurance that Baptism and the Lord's Supper are meant to provide.

I'll just make it clear cut by making two statements that a Calvinist can't agree with: God necessarily regenerates (through the Word) a man at Baptism, however the grace of Baptism can be resisted In the Sacrament is given the true Body and Blood of Jesus to believers and non-believers alike. For believers, forgiveness of sins and the assurance of salvation. For unbelievers, to their damnation.


Second, I see a problem, given the tenets of limited atonement and Sacramentarian view of Baptism and the Supper, of full total assurance in Calvinism. A Lutheran who is Baptized, receives the Sacraments, and shows fruit can be assured of their salvation. A Calvinist who is Baptized, receives the Sacrament, and shows fruit can say they are almost certainly saved. Ultimately, Calvinism can't go to the Sacraments, it has to go into the hidden will of God, which is of course, unknowable.

 

[Lizabth]

Also, if you look at Calvin's Institutes, he teaches that there are going to be some people who believe they are saved but are just lying to themselves so much they don't even know it. If you're a Calvinist, how can you be assured that you're not among those who are just lying to themselves so well, they don't even know that they aren't saved.

Because, Jesus said that His sheep hear His voice and follow Him. Lutherans also speak of 'hypocrites' in their midst, baptized and taking the Lord's Supper, lying to themselves about their salvation. Just going through the motions, to their judgement.

I'm not trying to play the straw man argument here, like I said, the Calvinist doctrine of election is not faulty because it teaches election, it just goes to an "extreme" (not trying to be pejorative) that Scripture doesn't want to go to. It does this in two ways. First it rips out the comfort and assurance that Baptism and the Lord's Supper are meant to provide.

I agree that some Calvy's have a real problem with thinking they can understand the deep decrees of God, pertaining to election, BUT they seem to have more assurance because as a called and elect child of God, they cannot lose their salvation. God holds them in the end, sinners though they are. Some Lutherans teach you can lose your salvation, walk out of God's election(in spite of what our confessions teach). What comfort and assurance is there?

I'll just make it clear cut by making two statements that a Calvinist can't agree with: God necessarily regenerates (through the Word) a man at Baptism, however the grace of Baptism can be resisted In the Sacrament is given the true Body and Blood of Jesus to believers and non-believers alike. For believers, forgiveness of sins and the assurance of salvation. For unbelievers, to their damnation.

God brings both his children and unbelievers into his visible church through baptism. It regenerates where there is election. It works to judgment where there is not. Calvinists would certainly have no problem with your statement re: The Supper. It works forgiveness of sins, grace and assurance. And judgment to those not of God's own.


Second, I see a problem, given the tenets of limited atonement and Sacramentarian view of Baptism and the Supper, of full total assurance in Calvinism. A Lutheran who is Baptized, receives the Sacraments, and shows fruit can be assured of their salvation. A Calvinist who is Baptized, receives the Sacrament, and shows fruit can say they are almost certainly saved. Ultimately, Calvinism can't go to the Sacraments, it has to go into the hidden will of God, which is of course, unknowable.

That's simply not true. Calvinists certainly look on the sacraments as means of grace. Assuring, correcting, loving. As far as limited Atonement goes, this might help you understand the reformed position a bit. It even quotes Luther!
"Double" Predestination by R.C. Sproul

Honestly, I don't understand why Lutherans don't get how close they are to their Reformed brothers and sisters. I get the Lutheran higher view of the sacraments, but really....the Reformed are not quite the heretics many Lutherans believe 'em to be. And I say this as an almost confirmed Luther-Lutheran.

 

[bach90]

That's simply not true. Calvinists certainly look on the sacraments as means of grace. Assuring, correcting, loving. As far as limited Atonement goes, this might help you understand the reformed position a bit. It even quotes Luther!
"Double" Predestination by R.C. Sproul

Honestly, I don't understand why Lutherans don't get how close they are to their Reformed brothers and sisters. I get the Lutheran higher view of the sacraments, but really....the Reformed are not quite the heretics many Lutherans believe 'em to be. And I say this as an almost confirmed Luther-Lutheran.

It's two things:

First regarding the Supper:

1) Are the body and blood received in the mouth?
Lutherans say yes, Calvinists say no.

2) Do unbelievers also receive the body and blood?
Lutherans say yes, Calvinists say no.

Second, are the Sacraments a Church dividing issue? Lutherans will say yes, the Reformed position is a little less certain.

Caveat: Luther did not believe in limited atonement.

 

[Aibrean]

2) Do unbelievers also receive the body and blood?
Lutherans say yes, Calvinists say no.

They don't if they are attending a proper Lutheran church that operates closed communion.

 

[DaRev]

That's simply not true. Calvinists certainly look on the sacraments as means of grace. Assuring, correcting, loving. As far as limited Atonement goes, this might help you understand the reformed position a bit. It even quotes Luther!
"Double" Predestination by R.C. Sproul

Honestly, I don't understand why Lutherans don't get how close they are to their Reformed brothers and sisters. I get the Lutheran higher view of the sacraments, but really....the Reformed are not quite the heretics many Lutherans believe 'em to be. And I say this as an almost confirmed Luther-Lutheran.

Lutherans aren't as close to Calvinists as you seem to think we are. I most certainly hope you discuss these issues with the Lutheran pastor before you get confirmed and receive the Sacrament. It appears that you still have MUCH to learn about Lutheranism.

 

[hedrick]

My problem with Calvinism is that it will always have you looking inward for assurance of your salvation. Lutheranism has you looking outward, at the cross, at the sacraments. It is objective, whereas Calvinism is subjective.

I understand where this comes from, but I think it's wrong. What is true is that later Reformed did in fact look for signs of election, whether subjective or in manner of life. But I don't think that was Calvin's intention or even is a real implication of his theology.

Luther and Calvin agreed about election in theory, but Luther was clearer about the fact that we can't know who is elect, and so we need to act on the basis of God's revealed message, not his secret will. However I believe Calvin also thought that.

"For though a belief of our election animates us to involve God, yet when we frame our prayers, it were preposterous to obtrude it upon God, or to stipulate in this way, “O Lord, if I am elected, hear me.” He would have us to rest satisfied with his promises, and not to inquire elsewhere whether or not he is disposed to hear us. We shall thus be disentangled from many snares, if we know how to make a right use of what is rightly written; but let us not inconsiderately wrest it to purposes different from that to which it ought to be confined." (Institutes 3.24.5)

What promises? From earlier in that same section:

“God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life,” (John 3:16). He who believes in him is said to have passed from death unto life (John 5:24).

I believe for both our assurance is on the basis of God's promises, not some kind of estimate of our spiritual state. However I think Luther's position on this is clearer and more carefully worked out.

 

[jonathan1971]

Have the Saxon Visitation Articles been mentioned yet? I just briefly skimmed the thread. If not you can check them out here.

1592 Saxon Visitation Articles

It's about the best document that clearly spells out the differences between Lutheranism and Calvinsim.

 

[Mediaeval]

DArceri,

what I meant was that if we try to wait to find sufficient evidences of grace in our own hearts or lives before we allow ourselves to believe that Christ is our Savior, we will never attain to assurance of salvation.

Lizbeth,

for me the difference between Calvinism and Lutheranism became stark when I learned their different perspectives on the Real Presence in the Lord's Supper. For Calvinists who affirm the Real Presence, Christ's Body and Blood are present subjectively, by virtue of the recipient's faith. For Lutherans (along with Catholics and Orthodox), Christ's Body and Blood are present objectively, simply by virtue of Christ's promise, 'This is My Body', etc. This difference seems to leaven the Calvinist and Lutheran lumps and lends to each their distinctive flavor. In any case, glad to have you among us!

 

[Lizabth]

Mediaeval,
Thank you for your kind words!
On the Lord's Supper, believe it or not, going Lutheran is a step toward the Calvys for me. I come from a very high-church Anglo-catholic, Episcopal church. Elevation of the Host, ringing bells, guarding the Host during holy week, etc.
I have no trouble with either the Calvinistic or Lutheran view. Spiritual? Yes. Real? Yes. Heavenly? Yes. Supernatural? Yes. Memorial? Yes. I affirm both houses in their fencing of their tables. My LC MS congregation is very much closed communion.

With Donne, I say:
"He was the Word, that spake it:
He took the bread and brake it;
And what that Word did make it,
I do believe and take it."

As my pastor said, "It's a mystery"(gosh..I hope that doesn't put him in the orthodox doggy-house). I am perfectly happy to leave it there, and take Jesus' words of institution just as He meant them.

 

[Lizabth]

As an aside, in my wanderings, I spent quite a bit of time in an IFB church. Now, believe me, Lutherans and Calvinists have MUCH more in common than they do with Baptists. That being said, some of the finest preaching I ever heard was in that IFB church. Very intelligent pastor. I pray some day he goes confessional, of one flavour or t'other. I still tune into his sermons online to this day(and with charity when he talks about dispy-stuff )

 

[Lizabth]

Have the Saxon Visitation Articles been mentioned yet? I just briefly skimmed the thread. If not you can check them out here.

1592 Saxon Visitation Articles

It's about the best document that clearly spells out the differences between Lutheranism and Calvinsim.

They are a little hyperbolic, as befitted the times, from the German POV. Honestly, if you want to start a thread going thru them, point by point, I'd love to discuss them with you.

 

[DaRev]

I have no trouble with either the Calvinistic or Lutheran view.

This is where the Lutheran has a problem. The Calvinistic teaching on the Sacrament is diametrically opposed to the Lutheran/Biblical teaching. If someone says they can accept both, then they don't know what the Bible or the Lutheran Church teaches about the Sacrament.

 

[Mediaeval]

I am perfectly happy to leave it there, and take Jesus' words of institution just as He meant them.

Totally agree. Even Lutherans fudge the meaning of the words too much IMO.

 

[bach90]

Mediaeval,
Thank you for your kind words!
On the Lord's Supper, believe it or not, going Lutheran is a step toward the Calvys for me. I come from a very high-church Anglo-catholic, Episcopal church. Elevation of the Host, ringing bells, guarding the Host during holy week, etc.
I have no trouble with either the Calvinistic or Lutheran view. Spiritual? Yes. Real? Yes. Heavenly? Yes. Supernatural? Yes. Memorial? Yes. I affirm both houses in their fencing of their tables. My LC MS congregation is very much closed communion.

With Donne, I say:
"He was the Word, that spake it:
He took the bread and brake it;
And what that Word did make it,
I do believe and take it."

As my pastor said, "It's a mystery"(gosh..I hope that doesn't put him in the orthodox doggy-house). I am perfectly happy to leave it there, and take Jesus' words of institution just as He meant them.

There's nothing wrong with the elevation, per se. Luther defended the practice of the elevation, although (from what I know), it has never been practiced in the East. Only when it is done to invoke the notion of sacrifice does the elevation become a bad thing.

 

[Aibrean]

Our pastor elevates the host during communion during part of the verba.

 

[DaRev]

I am perfectly happy to leave it there, and take Jesus' words of institution just as He meant them.

So, are you saying you're no longer a Calvinist? Because Calvinists don't take Jesus at His word.